[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Amzn Call/Put 100 Strike


  • To: kohath <kohath@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: Amzn Call/Put 100 Strike
  • From: THE DOCTOR <droex@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 18:15:51 -0700
  • In-reply-to: <00ca01bee58f$caea7680$a54a03cf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

PureBytes Links

Trading Reference Links

yes but the market maker would not have sold it unhedged.  The price
change would not have changed the MM's p/l at all.

kohath wrote:

>  The point here is, the call went from 40 to 2.5, a 1600% decrease in
> price,the Put went from 1.5 to 10.5, a 700% increase in price.  What I
> was pointingout was that, as a market maker, had I sold you 1 call at
> 40 and 1 put at 1.5,I would still be ahead 40 - 2.5 = 37.5, 1.5 - 10.5
> = 9, 37.5 - 9 = 28.5.  So,I would have a 28.5 X 100 = $2,850 profit
> for each of a call/put combination sold.That is why I said the price
> of the stock is irrelevant.  Yes, the stock droppedsignificantly, but,
> look what the options did.  Yes, there is more to being amarket maker
> than this simple illustration, but, there is a distinct advantageto
> selling verses buying.Kohath
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ira Tunik
> To: kohathCc: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: Friday, August 13, 1999
> 11:04 AMSubject: Re: Amzn Call/Put 100 Strike
>  If you feel that the stock price is irrelevant, I'll take the other
> side of your trades all day long.   The conversion reversal would have
> kept the puts and calls in direct relationship to one another.  It
> looks to me like the calls started in the money and then ran out.
> Half a truth doesn't prove that you are right.  Ira.
> kohath wrote:
>
>>  It's irrelevant where the stock was then and where it is now.  The
>> point is,Selling always brings in a higher percentage than buying,
>> always!  Becauseof the melting value of options, but, with selling
>> there is limited profit withunlimited risk!Kohath
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Ira Tunik
>> To: kohathCc: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: Friday, August 13, 1999
>> 10:40 AMSubject: Re: Amzn Call/Put 100 Strike
>>  You left out one very important fact. Where was the stock at point
>> one and at point 2 in your example. Why don't you post the stock
>> chart too?  Ira.
>>
>> > Charts of AMZN 100, Call, Put.Call went from $40 to $2.50, put went
>> > from $1.50 to $10.50.As can be seen, same strike, same time frame.
>> > This is whyselling is more profitable than buying, but, selling
>> > involvesmuch higher risk.  These two charts also show the
>> > marketmakers have a distinct advantage because of the meltingvalue
>> > of the options.Now if we had only sold 100 contracts of the YZZHT
>> > on July 16th!Kohath
>>
<x-html><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF">
yes but the market maker would not have sold it unhedged.&nbsp; The price
change would not have changed the MM's p/l at all.
<P>kohath wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;The point here is, the call went from 40 to
2.5, a 1600% decrease in price,the Put went from 1.5 to 10.5, a 700% increase
in price.&nbsp; What I was pointingout was that, as a market maker, had
I sold you 1 call at 40 and 1 put at 1.5,I would still be ahead 40 - 2.5
= 37.5, 1.5 - 10.5 = 9, 37.5 - 9 = 28.5.&nbsp; So,I would have a 28.5 X
100 = $2,850 profit for each of a call/put combination sold.That is why
I said the price of the stock is irrelevant.&nbsp; Yes, the stock droppedsignificantly,
but, look what the options did.&nbsp; Yes, there is more to being amarket
maker than this simple illustration, but, there is a distinct advantageto
selling verses buying.Kohath&nbsp;
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A HREF="mailto:ist@xxxxxx"; title="ist@xxxxxx">Ira
Tunik</A></DIV>
<B>To:</B> kohath<B>Cc:</B>
realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxx<B>Sent:</B>
Friday, August 13, 1999 11:04 AM<B>Subject:</B> Re: Amzn Call/Put 100 Strike</DIV>
&nbsp;If you feel that the stock price is irrelevant, I'll take the other
side of your trades all day long.&nbsp;&nbsp; The conversion reversal would
have kept the puts and calls in direct relationship to one another.&nbsp;
It looks to me like the calls started in the money and then ran out.&nbsp;
Half a truth doesn't prove that you are right.&nbsp; Ira.
<BR>kohath wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">&nbsp;It's irrelevant where the stock was then
and where it is now.&nbsp; The point is,Selling always brings in a higher
percentage than buying, always!&nbsp; Becauseof the melting value of options,
but, with selling there is limited profit withunlimited risk!Kohath
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A HREF="mailto:ist@xxxxxx"; title="ist@xxxxxx">Ira
Tunik</A></DIV>
<B>To:</B> kohath<B>Cc:</B>
realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxx<B>Sent:</B>
Friday, August 13, 1999 10:40 AM<B>Subject:</B> Re: Amzn Call/Put 100 Strike</DIV>
&nbsp;You left out one very important fact. Where was the stock at point
one and at point 2 in your example. Why don't you post the stock chart
too?&nbsp; Ira.
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><STYLE></STYLE>
Charts of AMZN 100, Call, Put.Call
went from $40 to $2.50, put went from $1.50 to $10.50.As can be seen, same
strike, same time frame.&nbsp; This is whyselling is more profitable than
buying, but, selling involvesmuch higher risk.&nbsp; These two charts also
show the marketmakers have a distinct advantage because of the meltingvalue
of the options.Now if we had only sold 100 contracts of the YZZHT on July
16th!Kohath&nbsp;<IMG SRC="cid:part1.37B4B4D8.A6FD465A@xxxxxxxxxxxx"; ALT="" BORDER=0 ></BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>

</BODY>
</HTML>
</x-html>
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Amzn1006.gif"